Permalink
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time
Fetching contributors…
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time
| Fighting regressions with git bisect | |
| ==================================== | |
| :Author: Christian Couder | |
| :Email: chriscool@tuxfamily.org | |
| :Date: 2009/11/08 | |
| Abstract | |
| -------- | |
| "git bisect" enables software users and developers to easily find the | |
| commit that introduced a regression. We show why it is important to | |
| have good tools to fight regressions. We describe how "git bisect" | |
| works from the outside and the algorithms it uses inside. Then we | |
| explain how to take advantage of "git bisect" to improve current | |
| practices. And we discuss how "git bisect" could improve in the | |
| future. | |
| Introduction to "git bisect" | |
| ---------------------------- | |
| Git is a Distributed Version Control system (DVCS) created by Linus | |
| Torvalds and maintained by Junio Hamano. | |
| In Git like in many other Version Control Systems (VCS), the different | |
| states of the data that is managed by the system are called | |
| commits. And, as VCS are mostly used to manage software source code, | |
| sometimes "interesting" changes of behavior in the software are | |
| introduced in some commits. | |
| In fact people are specially interested in commits that introduce a | |
| "bad" behavior, called a bug or a regression. They are interested in | |
| these commits because a commit (hopefully) contains a very small set | |
| of source code changes. And it's much easier to understand and | |
| properly fix a problem when you only need to check a very small set of | |
| changes, than when you don't know where look in the first place. | |
| So to help people find commits that introduce a "bad" behavior, the | |
| "git bisect" set of commands was invented. And it follows of course | |
| that in "git bisect" parlance, commits where the "interesting | |
| behavior" is present are called "bad" commits, while other commits are | |
| called "good" commits. And a commit that introduce the behavior we are | |
| interested in is called a "first bad commit". Note that there could be | |
| more than one "first bad commit" in the commit space we are searching. | |
| So "git bisect" is designed to help find a "first bad commit". And to | |
| be as efficient as possible, it tries to perform a binary search. | |
| Fighting regressions overview | |
| ----------------------------- | |
| Regressions: a big problem | |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
| Regressions are a big problem in the software industry. But it's | |
| difficult to put some real numbers behind that claim. | |
| There are some numbers about bugs in general, like a NIST study in | |
| 2002 <<1>> that said: | |
| _____________ | |
| Software bugs, or errors, are so prevalent and so detrimental that | |
| they cost the U.S. economy an estimated $59.5 billion annually, or | |
| about 0.6 percent of the gross domestic product, according to a newly | |
| released study commissioned by the Department of Commerce's National | |
| Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). At the national level, | |
| over half of the costs are borne by software users and the remainder | |
| by software developers/vendors. The study also found that, although | |
| all errors cannot be removed, more than a third of these costs, or an | |
| estimated $22.2 billion, could be eliminated by an improved testing | |
| infrastructure that enables earlier and more effective identification | |
| and removal of software defects. These are the savings associated with | |
| finding an increased percentage (but not 100 percent) of errors closer | |
| to the development stages in which they are introduced. Currently, | |
| over half of all errors are not found until "downstream" in the | |
| development process or during post-sale software use. | |
| _____________ | |
| And then: | |
| _____________ | |
| Software developers already spend approximately 80 percent of | |
| development costs on identifying and correcting defects, and yet few | |
| products of any type other than software are shipped with such high | |
| levels of errors. | |
| _____________ | |
| Eventually the conclusion started with: | |
| _____________ | |
| The path to higher software quality is significantly improved software | |
| testing. | |
| _____________ | |
| There are other estimates saying that 80% of the cost related to | |
| software is about maintenance <<2>>. | |
| Though, according to Wikipedia <<3>>: | |
| _____________ | |
| A common perception of maintenance is that it is merely fixing | |
| bugs. However, studies and surveys over the years have indicated that | |
| the majority, over 80%, of the maintenance effort is used for | |
| non-corrective actions (Pigosky 1997). This perception is perpetuated | |
| by users submitting problem reports that in reality are functionality | |
| enhancements to the system. | |
| _____________ | |
| But we can guess that improving on existing software is very costly | |
| because you have to watch out for regressions. At least this would | |
| make the above studies consistent among themselves. | |
| Of course some kind of software is developed, then used during some | |
| time without being improved on much, and then finally thrown away. In | |
| this case, of course, regressions may not be a big problem. But on the | |
| other hand, there is a lot of big software that is continually | |
| developed and maintained during years or even tens of years by a lot | |
| of people. And as there are often many people who depend (sometimes | |
| critically) on such software, regressions are a really big problem. | |
| One such software is the Linux kernel. And if we look at the Linux | |
| kernel, we can see that a lot of time and effort is spent to fight | |
| regressions. The release cycle start with a 2 weeks long merge | |
| window. Then the first release candidate (rc) version is tagged. And | |
| after that about 7 or 8 more rc versions will appear with around one | |
| week between each of them, before the final release. | |
| The time between the first rc release and the final release is | |
| supposed to be used to test rc versions and fight bugs and especially | |
| regressions. And this time is more than 80% of the release cycle | |
| time. But this is not the end of the fight yet, as of course it | |
| continues after the release. | |
| And then this is what Ingo Molnar (a well known Linux kernel | |
| developer) says about his use of git bisect: | |
| _____________ | |
| I most actively use it during the merge window (when a lot of trees | |
| get merged upstream and when the influx of bugs is the highest) - and | |
| yes, there have been cases that i used it multiple times a day. My | |
| average is roughly once a day. | |
| _____________ | |
| So regressions are fought all the time by developers, and indeed it is | |
| well known that bugs should be fixed as soon as possible, so as soon | |
| as they are found. That's why it is interesting to have good tools for | |
| this purpose. | |
| Other tools to fight regressions | |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
| So what are the tools used to fight regressions? They are nearly the | |
| same as those used to fight regular bugs. The only specific tools are | |
| test suites and tools similar as "git bisect". | |
| Test suites are very nice. But when they are used alone, they are | |
| supposed to be used so that all the tests are checked after each | |
| commit. This means that they are not very efficient, because many | |
| tests are run for no interesting result, and they suffer from | |
| combinational explosion. | |
| In fact the problem is that big software often has many different | |
| configuration options and that each test case should pass for each | |
| configuration after each commit. So if you have for each release: N | |
| configurations, M commits and T test cases, you should perform: | |
| ------------- | |
| N * M * T tests | |
| ------------- | |
| where N, M and T are all growing with the size your software. | |
| So very soon it will not be possible to completely test everything. | |
| And if some bugs slip through your test suite, then you can add a test | |
| to your test suite. But if you want to use your new improved test | |
| suite to find where the bug slipped in, then you will either have to | |
| emulate a bisection process or you will perhaps bluntly test each | |
| commit backward starting from the "bad" commit you have which may be | |
| very wasteful. | |
| "git bisect" overview | |
| --------------------- | |
| Starting a bisection | |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
| The first "git bisect" subcommand to use is "git bisect start" to | |
| start the search. Then bounds must be set to limit the commit | |
| space. This is done usually by giving one "bad" and at least one | |
| "good" commit. They can be passed in the initial call to "git bisect | |
| start" like this: | |
| ------------- | |
| $ git bisect start [BAD [GOOD...]] | |
| ------------- | |
| or they can be set using: | |
| ------------- | |
| $ git bisect bad [COMMIT] | |
| ------------- | |
| and: | |
| ------------- | |
| $ git bisect good [COMMIT...] | |
| ------------- | |
| where BAD, GOOD and COMMIT are all names that can be resolved to a | |
| commit. | |
| Then "git bisect" will checkout a commit of its choosing and ask the | |
| user to test it, like this: | |
| ------------- | |
| $ git bisect start v2.6.27 v2.6.25 | |
| Bisecting: 10928 revisions left to test after this (roughly 14 steps) | |
| [2ec65f8b89ea003c27ff7723525a2ee335a2b393] x86: clean up using max_low_pfn on 32-bit | |
| ------------- | |
| Note that the example that we will use is really a toy example, we | |
| will be looking for the first commit that has a version like | |
| "2.6.26-something", that is the commit that has a "SUBLEVEL = 26" line | |
| in the top level Makefile. This is a toy example because there are | |
| better ways to find this commit with Git than using "git bisect" (for | |
| example "git blame" or "git log -S<string>"). | |
| Driving a bisection manually | |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
| At this point there are basically 2 ways to drive the search. It can | |
| be driven manually by the user or it can be driven automatically by a | |
| script or a command. | |
| If the user is driving it, then at each step of the search, the user | |
| will have to test the current commit and say if it is "good" or "bad" | |
| using the "git bisect good" or "git bisect bad" commands respectively | |
| that have been described above. For example: | |
| ------------- | |
| $ git bisect bad | |
| Bisecting: 5480 revisions left to test after this (roughly 13 steps) | |
| [66c0b394f08fd89236515c1c84485ea712a157be] KVM: kill file->f_count abuse in kvm | |
| ------------- | |
| And after a few more steps like that, "git bisect" will eventually | |
| find a first bad commit: | |
| ------------- | |
| $ git bisect bad | |
| 2ddcca36c8bcfa251724fe342c8327451988be0d is the first bad commit | |
| commit 2ddcca36c8bcfa251724fe342c8327451988be0d | |
| Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> | |
| Date: Sat May 3 11:59:44 2008 -0700 | |
| Linux 2.6.26-rc1 | |
| :100644 100644 5cf82581... 4492984e... M Makefile | |
| ------------- | |
| At this point we can see what the commit does, check it out (if it's | |
| not already checked out) or tinker with it, for example: | |
| ------------- | |
| $ git show HEAD | |
| commit 2ddcca36c8bcfa251724fe342c8327451988be0d | |
| Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> | |
| Date: Sat May 3 11:59:44 2008 -0700 | |
| Linux 2.6.26-rc1 | |
| diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile | |
| index 5cf8258..4492984 100644 | |
| --- a/Makefile | |
| +++ b/Makefile | |
| @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ | |
| VERSION = 2 | |
| PATCHLEVEL = 6 | |
| -SUBLEVEL = 25 | |
| -EXTRAVERSION = | |
| +SUBLEVEL = 26 | |
| +EXTRAVERSION = -rc1 | |
| NAME = Funky Weasel is Jiggy wit it | |
| # *DOCUMENTATION* | |
| ------------- | |
| And when we are finished we can use "git bisect reset" to go back to | |
| the branch we were in before we started bisecting: | |
| ------------- | |
| $ git bisect reset | |
| Checking out files: 100% (21549/21549), done. | |
| Previous HEAD position was 2ddcca3... Linux 2.6.26-rc1 | |
| Switched to branch 'master' | |
| ------------- | |
| Driving a bisection automatically | |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
| The other way to drive the bisection process is to tell "git bisect" | |
| to launch a script or command at each bisection step to know if the | |
| current commit is "good" or "bad". To do that, we use the "git bisect | |
| run" command. For example: | |
| ------------- | |
| $ git bisect start v2.6.27 v2.6.25 | |
| Bisecting: 10928 revisions left to test after this (roughly 14 steps) | |
| [2ec65f8b89ea003c27ff7723525a2ee335a2b393] x86: clean up using max_low_pfn on 32-bit | |
| $ | |
| $ git bisect run grep '^SUBLEVEL = 25' Makefile | |
| running grep ^SUBLEVEL = 25 Makefile | |
| Bisecting: 5480 revisions left to test after this (roughly 13 steps) | |
| [66c0b394f08fd89236515c1c84485ea712a157be] KVM: kill file->f_count abuse in kvm | |
| running grep ^SUBLEVEL = 25 Makefile | |
| SUBLEVEL = 25 | |
| Bisecting: 2740 revisions left to test after this (roughly 12 steps) | |
| [671294719628f1671faefd4882764886f8ad08cb] V4L/DVB(7879): Adding cx18 Support for mxl5005s | |
| ... | |
| ... | |
| running grep ^SUBLEVEL = 25 Makefile | |
| Bisecting: 0 revisions left to test after this (roughly 0 steps) | |
| [2ddcca36c8bcfa251724fe342c8327451988be0d] Linux 2.6.26-rc1 | |
| running grep ^SUBLEVEL = 25 Makefile | |
| 2ddcca36c8bcfa251724fe342c8327451988be0d is the first bad commit | |
| commit 2ddcca36c8bcfa251724fe342c8327451988be0d | |
| Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> | |
| Date: Sat May 3 11:59:44 2008 -0700 | |
| Linux 2.6.26-rc1 | |
| :100644 100644 5cf82581... 4492984e... M Makefile | |
| bisect run success | |
| ------------- | |
| In this example, we passed "grep '^SUBLEVEL = 25' Makefile" as | |
| parameter to "git bisect run". This means that at each step, the grep | |
| command we passed will be launched. And if it exits with code 0 (that | |
| means success) then git bisect will mark the current state as | |
| "good". If it exits with code 1 (or any code between 1 and 127 | |
| included, except the special code 125), then the current state will be | |
| marked as "bad". | |
| Exit code between 128 and 255 are special to "git bisect run". They | |
| make it stop immediately the bisection process. This is useful for | |
| example if the command passed takes too long to complete, because you | |
| can kill it with a signal and it will stop the bisection process. | |
| It can also be useful in scripts passed to "git bisect run" to "exit | |
| 255" if some very abnormal situation is detected. | |
| Avoiding untestable commits | |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
| Sometimes it happens that the current state cannot be tested, for | |
| example if it does not compile because there was a bug preventing it | |
| at that time. This is what the special exit code 125 is for. It tells | |
| "git bisect run" that the current commit should be marked as | |
| untestable and that another one should be chosen and checked out. | |
| If the bisection process is driven manually, you can use "git bisect | |
| skip" to do the same thing. (In fact the special exit code 125 makes | |
| "git bisect run" use "git bisect skip" in the background.) | |
| Or if you want more control, you can inspect the current state using | |
| for example "git bisect visualize". It will launch gitk (or "git log" | |
| if the `DISPLAY` environment variable is not set) to help you find a | |
| better bisection point. | |
| Either way, if you have a string of untestable commits, it might | |
| happen that the regression you are looking for has been introduced by | |
| one of these untestable commits. In this case it's not possible to | |
| tell for sure which commit introduced the regression. | |
| So if you used "git bisect skip" (or the run script exited with | |
| special code 125) you could get a result like this: | |
| ------------- | |
| There are only 'skip'ped commits left to test. | |
| The first bad commit could be any of: | |
| 15722f2fa328eaba97022898a305ffc8172db6b1 | |
| 78e86cf3e850bd755bb71831f42e200626fbd1e0 | |
| e15b73ad3db9b48d7d1ade32f8cd23a751fe0ace | |
| 070eab2303024706f2924822bfec8b9847e4ac1b | |
| We cannot bisect more! | |
| ------------- | |
| Saving a log and replaying it | |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
| If you want to show other people your bisection process, you can get a | |
| log using for example: | |
| ------------- | |
| $ git bisect log > bisect_log.txt | |
| ------------- | |
| And it is possible to replay it using: | |
| ------------- | |
| $ git bisect replay bisect_log.txt | |
| ------------- | |
| "git bisect" details | |
| -------------------- | |
| Bisection algorithm | |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
| As the Git commits form a directed acyclic graph (DAG), finding the | |
| best bisection commit to test at each step is not so simple. Anyway | |
| Linus found and implemented a "truly stupid" algorithm, later improved | |
| by Junio Hamano, that works quite well. | |
| So the algorithm used by "git bisect" to find the best bisection | |
| commit when there are no skipped commits is the following: | |
| 1) keep only the commits that: | |
| a) are ancestor of the "bad" commit (including the "bad" commit itself), | |
| b) are not ancestor of a "good" commit (excluding the "good" commits). | |
| This means that we get rid of the uninteresting commits in the DAG. | |
| For example if we start with a graph like this: | |
| ------------- | |
| G-Y-G-W-W-W-X-X-X-X | |
| \ / | |
| W-W-B | |
| / | |
| Y---G-W---W | |
| \ / \ | |
| Y-Y X-X-X-X | |
| -> time goes this way -> | |
| ------------- | |
| where B is the "bad" commit, "G" are "good" commits and W, X, and Y | |
| are other commits, we will get the following graph after this first | |
| step: | |
| ------------- | |
| W-W-W | |
| \ | |
| W-W-B | |
| / | |
| W---W | |
| ------------- | |
| So only the W and B commits will be kept. Because commits X and Y will | |
| have been removed by rules a) and b) respectively, and because commits | |
| G are removed by rule b) too. | |
| Note for Git users, that it is equivalent as keeping only the commit | |
| given by: | |
| ------------- | |
| git rev-list BAD --not GOOD1 GOOD2... | |
| ------------- | |
| Also note that we don't require the commits that are kept to be | |
| descendants of a "good" commit. So in the following example, commits W | |
| and Z will be kept: | |
| ------------- | |
| G-W-W-W-B | |
| / | |
| Z-Z | |
| ------------- | |
| 2) starting from the "good" ends of the graph, associate to each | |
| commit the number of ancestors it has plus one | |
| For example with the following graph where H is the "bad" commit and A | |
| and D are some parents of some "good" commits: | |
| ------------- | |
| A-B-C | |
| \ | |
| F-G-H | |
| / | |
| D---E | |
| ------------- | |
| this will give: | |
| ------------- | |
| 1 2 3 | |
| A-B-C | |
| \6 7 8 | |
| F-G-H | |
| 1 2/ | |
| D---E | |
| ------------- | |
| 3) associate to each commit: min(X, N - X) | |
| where X is the value associated to the commit in step 2) and N is the | |
| total number of commits in the graph. | |
| In the above example we have N = 8, so this will give: | |
| ------------- | |
| 1 2 3 | |
| A-B-C | |
| \2 1 0 | |
| F-G-H | |
| 1 2/ | |
| D---E | |
| ------------- | |
| 4) the best bisection point is the commit with the highest associated | |
| number | |
| So in the above example the best bisection point is commit C. | |
| 5) note that some shortcuts are implemented to speed up the algorithm | |
| As we know N from the beginning, we know that min(X, N - X) can't be | |
| greater than N/2. So during steps 2) and 3), if we would associate N/2 | |
| to a commit, then we know this is the best bisection point. So in this | |
| case we can just stop processing any other commit and return the | |
| current commit. | |
| Bisection algorithm debugging | |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
| For any commit graph, you can see the number associated with each | |
| commit using "git rev-list --bisect-all". | |
| For example, for the above graph, a command like: | |
| ------------- | |
| $ git rev-list --bisect-all BAD --not GOOD1 GOOD2 | |
| ------------- | |
| would output something like: | |
| ------------- | |
| e15b73ad3db9b48d7d1ade32f8cd23a751fe0ace (dist=3) | |
| 15722f2fa328eaba97022898a305ffc8172db6b1 (dist=2) | |
| 78e86cf3e850bd755bb71831f42e200626fbd1e0 (dist=2) | |
| a1939d9a142de972094af4dde9a544e577ddef0e (dist=2) | |
| 070eab2303024706f2924822bfec8b9847e4ac1b (dist=1) | |
| a3864d4f32a3bf5ed177ddef598490a08760b70d (dist=1) | |
| a41baa717dd74f1180abf55e9341bc7a0bb9d556 (dist=1) | |
| 9e622a6dad403b71c40979743bb9d5be17b16bd6 (dist=0) | |
| ------------- | |
| Bisection algorithm discussed | |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
| First let's define "best bisection point". We will say that a commit X | |
| is a best bisection point or a best bisection commit if knowing its | |
| state ("good" or "bad") gives as much information as possible whether | |
| the state of the commit happens to be "good" or "bad". | |
| This means that the best bisection commits are the commits where the | |
| following function is maximum: | |
| ------------- | |
| f(X) = min(information_if_good(X), information_if_bad(X)) | |
| ------------- | |
| where information_if_good(X) is the information we get if X is good | |
| and information_if_bad(X) is the information we get if X is bad. | |
| Now we will suppose that there is only one "first bad commit". This | |
| means that all its descendants are "bad" and all the other commits are | |
| "good". And we will suppose that all commits have an equal probability | |
| of being good or bad, or of being the first bad commit, so knowing the | |
| state of c commits gives always the same amount of information | |
| wherever these c commits are on the graph and whatever c is. (So we | |
| suppose that these commits being for example on a branch or near a | |
| good or a bad commit does not give more or less information). | |
| Let's also suppose that we have a cleaned up graph like one after step | |
| 1) in the bisection algorithm above. This means that we can measure | |
| the information we get in terms of number of commit we can remove from | |
| the graph.. | |
| And let's take a commit X in the graph. | |
| If X is found to be "good", then we know that its ancestors are all | |
| "good", so we want to say that: | |
| ------------- | |
| information_if_good(X) = number_of_ancestors(X) (TRUE) | |
| ------------- | |
| And this is true because at step 1) b) we remove the ancestors of the | |
| "good" commits. | |
| If X is found to be "bad", then we know that its descendants are all | |
| "bad", so we want to say that: | |
| ------------- | |
| information_if_bad(X) = number_of_descendants(X) (WRONG) | |
| ------------- | |
| But this is wrong because at step 1) a) we keep only the ancestors of | |
| the bad commit. So we get more information when a commit is marked as | |
| "bad", because we also know that the ancestors of the previous "bad" | |
| commit that are not ancestors of the new "bad" commit are not the | |
| first bad commit. We don't know if they are good or bad, but we know | |
| that they are not the first bad commit because they are not ancestor | |
| of the new "bad" commit. | |
| So when a commit is marked as "bad" we know we can remove all the | |
| commits in the graph except those that are ancestors of the new "bad" | |
| commit. This means that: | |
| ------------- | |
| information_if_bad(X) = N - number_of_ancestors(X) (TRUE) | |
| ------------- | |
| where N is the number of commits in the (cleaned up) graph. | |
| So in the end this means that to find the best bisection commits we | |
| should maximize the function: | |
| ------------- | |
| f(X) = min(number_of_ancestors(X), N - number_of_ancestors(X)) | |
| ------------- | |
| And this is nice because at step 2) we compute number_of_ancestors(X) | |
| and so at step 3) we compute f(X). | |
| Let's take the following graph as an example: | |
| ------------- | |
| G-H-I-J | |
| / \ | |
| A-B-C-D-E-F O | |
| \ / | |
| K-L-M-N | |
| ------------- | |
| If we compute the following non optimal function on it: | |
| ------------- | |
| g(X) = min(number_of_ancestors(X), number_of_descendants(X)) | |
| ------------- | |
| we get: | |
| ------------- | |
| 4 3 2 1 | |
| G-H-I-J | |
| 1 2 3 4 5 6/ \0 | |
| A-B-C-D-E-F O | |
| \ / | |
| K-L-M-N | |
| 4 3 2 1 | |
| ------------- | |
| but with the algorithm used by git bisect we get: | |
| ------------- | |
| 7 7 6 5 | |
| G-H-I-J | |
| 1 2 3 4 5 6/ \0 | |
| A-B-C-D-E-F O | |
| \ / | |
| K-L-M-N | |
| 7 7 6 5 | |
| ------------- | |
| So we chose G, H, K or L as the best bisection point, which is better | |
| than F. Because if for example L is bad, then we will know not only | |
| that L, M and N are bad but also that G, H, I and J are not the first | |
| bad commit (since we suppose that there is only one first bad commit | |
| and it must be an ancestor of L). | |
| So the current algorithm seems to be the best possible given what we | |
| initially supposed. | |
| Skip algorithm | |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
| When some commits have been skipped (using "git bisect skip"), then | |
| the bisection algorithm is the same for step 1) to 3). But then we use | |
| roughly the following steps: | |
| 6) sort the commit by decreasing associated value | |
| 7) if the first commit has not been skipped, we can return it and stop | |
| here | |
| 8) otherwise filter out all the skipped commits in the sorted list | |
| 9) use a pseudo random number generator (PRNG) to generate a random | |
| number between 0 and 1 | |
| 10) multiply this random number with its square root to bias it toward | |
| 0 | |
| 11) multiply the result by the number of commits in the filtered list | |
| to get an index into this list | |
| 12) return the commit at the computed index | |
| Skip algorithm discussed | |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
| After step 7) (in the skip algorithm), we could check if the second | |
| commit has been skipped and return it if it is not the case. And in | |
| fact that was the algorithm we used from when "git bisect skip" was | |
| developed in Git version 1.5.4 (released on February 1st 2008) until | |
| Git version 1.6.4 (released July 29th 2009). | |
| But Ingo Molnar and H. Peter Anvin (another well known linux kernel | |
| developer) both complained that sometimes the best bisection points | |
| all happened to be in an area where all the commits are | |
| untestable. And in this case the user was asked to test many | |
| untestable commits, which could be very inefficient. | |
| Indeed untestable commits are often untestable because a breakage was | |
| introduced at one time, and that breakage was fixed only after many | |
| other commits were introduced. | |
| This breakage is of course most of the time unrelated to the breakage | |
| we are trying to locate in the commit graph. But it prevents us to | |
| know if the interesting "bad behavior" is present or not. | |
| So it is a fact that commits near an untestable commit have a high | |
| probability of being untestable themselves. And the best bisection | |
| commits are often found together too (due to the bisection algorithm). | |
| This is why it is a bad idea to just chose the next best unskipped | |
| bisection commit when the first one has been skipped. | |
| We found that most commits on the graph may give quite a lot of | |
| information when they are tested. And the commits that will not on | |
| average give a lot of information are the one near the good and bad | |
| commits. | |
| So using a PRNG with a bias to favor commits away from the good and | |
| bad commits looked like a good choice. | |
| One obvious improvement to this algorithm would be to look for a | |
| commit that has an associated value near the one of the best bisection | |
| commit, and that is on another branch, before using the PRNG. Because | |
| if such a commit exists, then it is not very likely to be untestable | |
| too, so it will probably give more information than a nearly randomly | |
| chosen one. | |
| Checking merge bases | |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
| There is another tweak in the bisection algorithm that has not been | |
| described in the "bisection algorithm" above. | |
| We supposed in the previous examples that the "good" commits were | |
| ancestors of the "bad" commit. But this is not a requirement of "git | |
| bisect". | |
| Of course the "bad" commit cannot be an ancestor of a "good" commit, | |
| because the ancestors of the good commits are supposed to be | |
| "good". And all the "good" commits must be related to the bad commit. | |
| They cannot be on a branch that has no link with the branch of the | |
| "bad" commit. But it is possible for a good commit to be related to a | |
| bad commit and yet not be neither one of its ancestor nor one of its | |
| descendants. | |
| For example, there can be a "main" branch, and a "dev" branch that was | |
| forked of the main branch at a commit named "D" like this: | |
| ------------- | |
| A-B-C-D-E-F-G <--main | |
| \ | |
| H-I-J <--dev | |
| ------------- | |
| The commit "D" is called a "merge base" for branch "main" and "dev" | |
| because it's the best common ancestor for these branches for a merge. | |
| Now let's suppose that commit J is bad and commit G is good and that | |
| we apply the bisection algorithm like it has been previously | |
| described. | |
| As described in step 1) b) of the bisection algorithm, we remove all | |
| the ancestors of the good commits because they are supposed to be good | |
| too. | |
| So we would be left with only: | |
| ------------- | |
| H-I-J | |
| ------------- | |
| But what happens if the first bad commit is "B" and if it has been | |
| fixed in the "main" branch by commit "F"? | |
| The result of such a bisection would be that we would find that H is | |
| the first bad commit, when in fact it's B. So that would be wrong! | |
| And yes it can happen in practice that people working on one branch | |
| are not aware that people working on another branch fixed a bug! It | |
| could also happen that F fixed more than one bug or that it is a | |
| revert of some big development effort that was not ready to be | |
| released. | |
| In fact development teams often maintain both a development branch and | |
| a maintenance branch, and it would be quite easy for them if "git | |
| bisect" just worked when they want to bisect a regression on the | |
| development branch that is not on the maintenance branch. They should | |
| be able to start bisecting using: | |
| ------------- | |
| $ git bisect start dev main | |
| ------------- | |
| To enable that additional nice feature, when a bisection is started | |
| and when some good commits are not ancestors of the bad commit, we | |
| first compute the merge bases between the bad and the good commits and | |
| we chose these merge bases as the first commits that will be checked | |
| out and tested. | |
| If it happens that one merge base is bad, then the bisection process | |
| is stopped with a message like: | |
| ------------- | |
| The merge base BBBBBB is bad. | |
| This means the bug has been fixed between BBBBBB and [GGGGGG,...]. | |
| ------------- | |
| where BBBBBB is the sha1 hash of the bad merge base and [GGGGGG,...] | |
| is a comma separated list of the sha1 of the good commits. | |
| If some of the merge bases are skipped, then the bisection process | |
| continues, but the following message is printed for each skipped merge | |
| base: | |
| ------------- | |
| Warning: the merge base between BBBBBB and [GGGGGG,...] must be skipped. | |
| So we cannot be sure the first bad commit is between MMMMMM and BBBBBB. | |
| We continue anyway. | |
| ------------- | |
| where BBBBBB is the sha1 hash of the bad commit, MMMMMM is the sha1 | |
| hash of the merge base that is skipped and [GGGGGG,...] is a comma | |
| separated list of the sha1 of the good commits. | |
| So if there is no bad merge base, the bisection process continues as | |
| usual after this step. | |
| Best bisecting practices | |
| ------------------------ | |
| Using test suites and git bisect together | |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
| If you both have a test suite and use git bisect, then it becomes less | |
| important to check that all tests pass after each commit. Though of | |
| course it is probably a good idea to have some checks to avoid | |
| breaking too many things because it could make bisecting other bugs | |
| more difficult. | |
| You can focus your efforts to check at a few points (for example rc | |
| and beta releases) that all the T test cases pass for all the N | |
| configurations. And when some tests don't pass you can use "git | |
| bisect" (or better "git bisect run"). So you should perform roughly: | |
| ------------- | |
| c * N * T + b * M * log2(M) tests | |
| ------------- | |
| where c is the number of rounds of test (so a small constant) and b is | |
| the ratio of bug per commit (hopefully a small constant too). | |
| So of course it's much better as it's O(N * T) vs O(N * T * M) if | |
| you would test everything after each commit. | |
| This means that test suites are good to prevent some bugs from being | |
| committed and they are also quite good to tell you that you have some | |
| bugs. But they are not so good to tell you where some bugs have been | |
| introduced. To tell you that efficiently, git bisect is needed. | |
| The other nice thing with test suites, is that when you have one, you | |
| already know how to test for bad behavior. So you can use this | |
| knowledge to create a new test case for "git bisect" when it appears | |
| that there is a regression. So it will be easier to bisect the bug and | |
| fix it. And then you can add the test case you just created to your | |
| test suite. | |
| So if you know how to create test cases and how to bisect, you will be | |
| subject to a virtuous circle: | |
| more tests => easier to create tests => easier to bisect => more tests | |
| So test suites and "git bisect" are complementary tools that are very | |
| powerful and efficient when used together. | |
| Bisecting build failures | |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
| You can very easily automatically bisect broken builds using something | |
| like: | |
| ------------- | |
| $ git bisect start BAD GOOD | |
| $ git bisect run make | |
| ------------- | |
| Passing sh -c "some commands" to "git bisect run" | |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
| For example: | |
| ------------- | |
| $ git bisect run sh -c "make || exit 125; ./my_app | grep 'good output'" | |
| ------------- | |
| On the other hand if you do this often, then it can be worth having | |
| scripts to avoid too much typing. | |
| Finding performance regressions | |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
| Here is an example script that comes slightly modified from a real | |
| world script used by Junio Hamano <<4>>. | |
| This script can be passed to "git bisect run" to find the commit that | |
| introduced a performance regression: | |
| ------------- | |
| #!/bin/sh | |
| # Build errors are not what I am interested in. | |
| make my_app || exit 255 | |
| # We are checking if it stops in a reasonable amount of time, so | |
| # let it run in the background... | |
| ./my_app >log 2>&1 & | |
| # ... and grab its process ID. | |
| pid=$! | |
| # ... and then wait for sufficiently long. | |
| sleep $NORMAL_TIME | |
| # ... and then see if the process is still there. | |
| if kill -0 $pid | |
| then | |
| # It is still running -- that is bad. | |
| kill $pid; sleep 1; kill $pid; | |
| exit 1 | |
| else | |
| # It has already finished (the $pid process was no more), | |
| # and we are happy. | |
| exit 0 | |
| fi | |
| ------------- | |
| Following general best practices | |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
| It is obviously a good idea not to have commits with changes that | |
| knowingly break things, even if some other commits later fix the | |
| breakage. | |
| It is also a good idea when using any VCS to have only one small | |
| logical change in each commit. | |
| The smaller the changes in your commit, the most effective "git | |
| bisect" will be. And you will probably need "git bisect" less in the | |
| first place, as small changes are easier to review even if they are | |
| only reviewed by the committer. | |
| Another good idea is to have good commit messages. They can be very | |
| helpful to understand why some changes were made. | |
| These general best practices are very helpful if you bisect often. | |
| Avoiding bug prone merges | |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
| First merges by themselves can introduce some regressions even when | |
| the merge needs no source code conflict resolution. This is because a | |
| semantic change can happen in one branch while the other branch is not | |
| aware of it. | |
| For example one branch can change the semantic of a function while the | |
| other branch add more calls to the same function. | |
| This is made much worse if many files have to be fixed to resolve | |
| conflicts. That's why such merges are called "evil merges". They can | |
| make regressions very difficult to track down. It can even be | |
| misleading to know the first bad commit if it happens to be such a | |
| merge, because people might think that the bug comes from bad conflict | |
| resolution when it comes from a semantic change in one branch. | |
| Anyway "git rebase" can be used to linearize history. This can be used | |
| either to avoid merging in the first place. Or it can be used to | |
| bisect on a linear history instead of the non linear one, as this | |
| should give more information in case of a semantic change in one | |
| branch. | |
| Merges can be also made simpler by using smaller branches or by using | |
| many topic branches instead of only long version related branches. | |
| And testing can be done more often in special integration branches | |
| like linux-next for the linux kernel. | |
| Adapting your work-flow | |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
| A special work-flow to process regressions can give great results. | |
| Here is an example of a work-flow used by Andreas Ericsson: | |
| * write, in the test suite, a test script that exposes the regression | |
| * use "git bisect run" to find the commit that introduced it | |
| * fix the bug that is often made obvious by the previous step | |
| * commit both the fix and the test script (and if needed more tests) | |
| And here is what Andreas said about this work-flow <<5>>: | |
| _____________ | |
| To give some hard figures, we used to have an average report-to-fix | |
| cycle of 142.6 hours (according to our somewhat weird bug-tracker | |
| which just measures wall-clock time). Since we moved to Git, we've | |
| lowered that to 16.2 hours. Primarily because we can stay on top of | |
| the bug fixing now, and because everyone's jockeying to get to fix | |
| bugs (we're quite proud of how lazy we are to let Git find the bugs | |
| for us). Each new release results in ~40% fewer bugs (almost certainly | |
| due to how we now feel about writing tests). | |
| _____________ | |
| Clearly this work-flow uses the virtuous circle between test suites | |
| and "git bisect". In fact it makes it the standard procedure to deal | |
| with regression. | |
| In other messages Andreas says that they also use the "best practices" | |
| described above: small logical commits, topic branches, no evil | |
| merge,... These practices all improve the bisectability of the commit | |
| graph, by making it easier and more useful to bisect. | |
| So a good work-flow should be designed around the above points. That | |
| is making bisecting easier, more useful and standard. | |
| Involving QA people and if possible end users | |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
| One nice about "git bisect" is that it is not only a developer | |
| tool. It can effectively be used by QA people or even end users (if | |
| they have access to the source code or if they can get access to all | |
| the builds). | |
| There was a discussion at one point on the linux kernel mailing list | |
| of whether it was ok to always ask end user to bisect, and very good | |
| points were made to support the point of view that it is ok. | |
| For example David Miller wrote <<6>>: | |
| _____________ | |
| What people don't get is that this is a situation where the "end node | |
| principle" applies. When you have limited resources (here: developers) | |
| you don't push the bulk of the burden upon them. Instead you push | |
| things out to the resource you have a lot of, the end nodes (here: | |
| users), so that the situation actually scales. | |
| _____________ | |
| This means that it is often "cheaper" if QA people or end users can do | |
| it. | |
| What is interesting too is that end users that are reporting bugs (or | |
| QA people that reproduced a bug) have access to the environment where | |
| the bug happens. So they can often more easily reproduce a | |
| regression. And if they can bisect, then more information will be | |
| extracted from the environment where the bug happens, which means that | |
| it will be easier to understand and then fix the bug. | |
| For open source projects it can be a good way to get more useful | |
| contributions from end users, and to introduce them to QA and | |
| development activities. | |
| Using complex scripts | |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
| In some cases like for kernel development it can be worth developing | |
| complex scripts to be able to fully automate bisecting. | |
| Here is what Ingo Molnar says about that <<7>>: | |
| _____________ | |
| i have a fully automated bootup-hang bisection script. It is based on | |
| "git-bisect run". I run the script, it builds and boots kernels fully | |
| automatically, and when the bootup fails (the script notices that via | |
| the serial log, which it continuously watches - or via a timeout, if | |
| the system does not come up within 10 minutes it's a "bad" kernel), | |
| the script raises my attention via a beep and i power cycle the test | |
| box. (yeah, i should make use of a managed power outlet to 100% | |
| automate it) | |
| _____________ | |
| Combining test suites, git bisect and other systems together | |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
| We have seen that test suites an git bisect are very powerful when | |
| used together. It can be even more powerful if you can combine them | |
| with other systems. | |
| For example some test suites could be run automatically at night with | |
| some unusual (or even random) configurations. And if a regression is | |
| found by a test suite, then "git bisect" can be automatically | |
| launched, and its result can be emailed to the author of the first bad | |
| commit found by "git bisect", and perhaps other people too. And a new | |
| entry in the bug tracking system could be automatically created too. | |
| The future of bisecting | |
| ----------------------- | |
| "git replace" | |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
| We saw earlier that "git bisect skip" is now using a PRNG to try to | |
| avoid areas in the commit graph where commits are untestable. The | |
| problem is that sometimes the first bad commit will be in an | |
| untestable area. | |
| To simplify the discussion we will suppose that the untestable area is | |
| a simple string of commits and that it was created by a breakage | |
| introduced by one commit (let's call it BBC for bisect breaking | |
| commit) and later fixed by another one (let's call it BFC for bisect | |
| fixing commit). | |
| For example: | |
| ------------- | |
| ...-Y-BBC-X1-X2-X3-X4-X5-X6-BFC-Z-... | |
| ------------- | |
| where we know that Y is good and BFC is bad, and where BBC and X1 to | |
| X6 are untestable. | |
| In this case if you are bisecting manually, what you can do is create | |
| a special branch that starts just before the BBC. The first commit in | |
| this branch should be the BBC with the BFC squashed into it. And the | |
| other commits in the branch should be the commits between BBC and BFC | |
| rebased on the first commit of the branch and then the commit after | |
| BFC also rebased on. | |
| For example: | |
| ------------- | |
| (BBC+BFC)-X1'-X2'-X3'-X4'-X5'-X6'-Z' | |
| / | |
| ...-Y-BBC-X1-X2-X3-X4-X5-X6-BFC-Z-... | |
| ------------- | |
| where commits quoted with ' have been rebased. | |
| You can easily create such a branch with Git using interactive rebase. | |
| For example using: | |
| ------------- | |
| $ git rebase -i Y Z | |
| ------------- | |
| and then moving BFC after BBC and squashing it. | |
| After that you can start bisecting as usual in the new branch and you | |
| should eventually find the first bad commit. | |
| For example: | |
| ------------- | |
| $ git bisect start Z' Y | |
| ------------- | |
| If you are using "git bisect run", you can use the same manual fix up | |
| as above, and then start another "git bisect run" in the special | |
| branch. Or as the "git bisect" man page says, the script passed to | |
| "git bisect run" can apply a patch before it compiles and test the | |
| software <<8>>. The patch should turn a current untestable commits | |
| into a testable one. So the testing will result in "good" or "bad" and | |
| "git bisect" will be able to find the first bad commit. And the script | |
| should not forget to remove the patch once the testing is done before | |
| exiting from the script. | |
| (Note that instead of a patch you can use "git cherry-pick BFC" to | |
| apply the fix, and in this case you should use "git reset --hard | |
| HEAD^" to revert the cherry-pick after testing and before returning | |
| from the script.) | |
| But the above ways to work around untestable areas are a little bit | |
| clunky. Using special branches is nice because these branches can be | |
| shared by developers like usual branches, but the risk is that people | |
| will get many such branches. And it disrupts the normal "git bisect" | |
| work-flow. So, if you want to use "git bisect run" completely | |
| automatically, you have to add special code in your script to restart | |
| bisection in the special branches. | |
| Anyway one can notice in the above special branch example that the Z' | |
| and Z commits should point to the same source code state (the same | |
| "tree" in git parlance). That's because Z' result from applying the | |
| same changes as Z just in a slightly different order. | |
| So if we could just "replace" Z by Z' when we bisect, then we would | |
| not need to add anything to a script. It would just work for anyone in | |
| the project sharing the special branches and the replacements. | |
| With the example above that would give: | |
| ------------- | |
| (BBC+BFC)-X1'-X2'-X3'-X4'-X5'-X6'-Z'-... | |
| / | |
| ...-Y-BBC-X1-X2-X3-X4-X5-X6-BFC-Z | |
| ------------- | |
| That's why the "git replace" command was created. Technically it | |
| stores replacements "refs" in the "refs/replace/" hierarchy. These | |
| "refs" are like branches (that are stored in "refs/heads/") or tags | |
| (that are stored in "refs/tags"), and that means that they can | |
| automatically be shared like branches or tags among developers. | |
| "git replace" is a very powerful mechanism. It can be used to fix | |
| commits in already released history, for example to change the commit | |
| message or the author. And it can also be used instead of git "grafts" | |
| to link a repository with another old repository. | |
| In fact it's this last feature that "sold" it to the Git community, so | |
| it is now in the "master" branch of Git's Git repository and it should | |
| be released in Git 1.6.5 in October or November 2009. | |
| One problem with "git replace" is that currently it stores all the | |
| replacements refs in "refs/replace/", but it would be perhaps better | |
| if the replacement refs that are useful only for bisecting would be in | |
| "refs/replace/bisect/". This way the replacement refs could be used | |
| only for bisecting, while other refs directly in "refs/replace/" would | |
| be used nearly all the time. | |
| Bisecting sporadic bugs | |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
| Another possible improvement to "git bisect" would be to optionally | |
| add some redundancy to the tests performed so that it would be more | |
| reliable when tracking sporadic bugs. | |
| This has been requested by some kernel developers because some bugs | |
| called sporadic bugs do not appear in all the kernel builds because | |
| they are very dependent on the compiler output. | |
| The idea is that every 3 test for example, "git bisect" could ask the | |
| user to test a commit that has already been found to be "good" or | |
| "bad" (because one of its descendants or one of its ancestors has been | |
| found to be "good" or "bad" respectively). If it happens that a commit | |
| has been previously incorrectly classified then the bisection can be | |
| aborted early, hopefully before too many mistakes have been made. Then | |
| the user will have to look at what happened and then restart the | |
| bisection using a fixed bisect log. | |
| There is already a project called BBChop created by Ealdwulf Wuffinga | |
| on Github that does something like that using Bayesian Search Theory | |
| <<9>>: | |
| _____________ | |
| BBChop is like 'git bisect' (or equivalent), but works when your bug | |
| is intermittent. That is, it works in the presence of false negatives | |
| (when a version happens to work this time even though it contains the | |
| bug). It assumes that there are no false positives (in principle, the | |
| same approach would work, but adding it may be non-trivial). | |
| _____________ | |
| But BBChop is independent of any VCS and it would be easier for Git | |
| users to have something integrated in Git. | |
| Conclusion | |
| ---------- | |
| We have seen that regressions are an important problem, and that "git | |
| bisect" has nice features that complement very well practices and | |
| other tools, especially test suites, that are generally used to fight | |
| regressions. But it might be needed to change some work-flows and | |
| (bad) habits to get the most out of it. | |
| Some improvements to the algorithms inside "git bisect" are possible | |
| and some new features could help in some cases, but overall "git | |
| bisect" works already very well, is used a lot, and is already very | |
| useful. To back up that last claim, let's give the final word to Ingo | |
| Molnar when he was asked by the author how much time does he think | |
| "git bisect" saves him when he uses it: | |
| _____________ | |
| a _lot_. | |
| About ten years ago did i do my first 'bisection' of a Linux patch | |
| queue. That was prior the Git (and even prior the BitKeeper) days. I | |
| literally days spent sorting out patches, creating what in essence | |
| were standalone commits that i guessed to be related to that bug. | |
| It was a tool of absolute last resort. I'd rather spend days looking | |
| at printk output than do a manual 'patch bisection'. | |
| With Git bisect it's a breeze: in the best case i can get a ~15 step | |
| kernel bisection done in 20-30 minutes, in an automated way. Even with | |
| manual help or when bisecting multiple, overlapping bugs, it's rarely | |
| more than an hour. | |
| In fact it's invaluable because there are bugs i would never even | |
| _try_ to debug if it wasn't for git bisect. In the past there were bug | |
| patterns that were immediately hopeless for me to debug - at best i | |
| could send the crash/bug signature to lkml and hope that someone else | |
| can think of something. | |
| And even if a bisection fails today it tells us something valuable | |
| about the bug: that it's non-deterministic - timing or kernel image | |
| layout dependent. | |
| So git bisect is unconditional goodness - and feel free to quote that | |
| ;-) | |
| _____________ | |
| Acknowledgments | |
| --------------- | |
| Many thanks to Junio Hamano for his help in reviewing this paper, for | |
| reviewing the patches I sent to the Git mailing list, for discussing | |
| some ideas and helping me improve them, for improving "git bisect" a | |
| lot and for his awesome work in maintaining and developing Git. | |
| Many thanks to Ingo Molnar for giving me very useful information that | |
| appears in this paper, for commenting on this paper, for his | |
| suggestions to improve "git bisect" and for evangelizing "git bisect" | |
| on the linux kernel mailing lists. | |
| Many thanks to Linus Torvalds for inventing, developing and | |
| evangelizing "git bisect", Git and Linux. | |
| Many thanks to the many other great people who helped one way or | |
| another when I worked on Git, especially to Andreas Ericsson, Johannes | |
| Schindelin, H. Peter Anvin, Daniel Barkalow, Bill Lear, John Hawley, | |
| Shawn O. Pierce, Jeff King, Sam Vilain, Jon Seymour. | |
| Many thanks to the Linux-Kongress program committee for choosing the | |
| author to given a talk and for publishing this paper. | |
| References | |
| ---------- | |
| - [[[1]]] https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/director/planning/report02-3.pdf['The Economic Impacts of Inadequate Infratructure for Software Testing'. Nist Planning Report 02-3], see Executive Summary and Chapter 8. | |
| - [[[2]]] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/codeconvtoc-136057.html['Code Conventions for the Java Programming Language'. Sun Microsystems.] | |
| - [[[3]]] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_maintenance['Software maintenance'. Wikipedia.] | |
| - [[[4]]] https://public-inbox.org/git/7vps5xsbwp.fsf_-_@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net/[Junio C Hamano. 'Automated bisect success story'.] | |
| - [[[5]]] https://lwn.net/Articles/317154/[Christian Couder. 'Fully automated bisecting with "git bisect run"'. LWN.net.] | |
| - [[[6]]] https://lwn.net/Articles/277872/[Jonathan Corbet. 'Bisection divides users and developers'. LWN.net.] | |
| - [[[7]]] http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119702753411680&w=2[Ingo Molnar. 'Re: BUG 2.6.23-rc3 can't see sd partitions on Alpha'. Linux-kernel mailing list.] | |
| - [[[8]]] https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-bisect.html[Junio C Hamano and the git-list. 'git-bisect(1) Manual Page'. Linux Kernel Archives.] | |
| - [[[9]]] https://github.com/Ealdwulf/bbchop[Ealdwulf. 'bbchop'. GitHub.] |